Giant Bomb News

Worth Reading: 06/20/2014

With E3 headed into the rearview mirror, let's settle in and click on things. Lots of things.

I'm still wrapping my head around Nintendo and E3 2014. Has there ever been a show where the company that so clearly "won" the show was also the company struggling in the marketplace?

Maybe that was Sega during the Dreamcast years, a company producing amazing game after amazing game, yet simply waiting for the PlayStation 2 to come and devour its lunch. It's possible E3 2014 heralds a turning point for Wii U, but if there is one, it's where the Wii U can probably take its status alongside GameCube: a machine worth owning and that sold kind of okay.

Besides the games, though, I have to imagine Sony and Microsoft paid close attention to Treehouse Live. Granted, Nintendo was able to generate an intense amount of interest this year because the company never, ever does anything like that. While it's unlikely a one-trick pony, it's worth remembering there's a shiny newness factor to it all.

Between Treehouse Live and Twitch, one can't help but wonder what the future holds for games media and E3. I don't think Giant Bomb has much to worry about. Talking over the press conferences made better use of our editors than anything we've ever done, and the nightly shows take advantage of developer proximity in a way that remains uniquely ours. The distribution of game information will become even more tightly controlled in the years to come, but we still have our place. I'll worry about it in a year.

Hey, You Should Play This

And You Should Read These, Too

"This is Phil Fish" by Ian Danskin

Whatever you think of Phil Fish, watch this video. It's the first time I've included a video essay in this portion of Worth Reading, so far as I know. I welcome this change of page. When we talk about Phil Fish, are we actually talking about Phil Fish? That's what Ian Danskin's essay poses as its big question, and tries to break down the machinations behind and consequences of Internet celebrity. I never thought I'd watch a video that forced me to deeply think about why people hate Nickleback, but, hey, there you go.

Layoffs are not unique to the video game industry, but it certainly feels like our medium experiences employee turnover at a rate a little faster than others. Whether that's true or not, working on a video game one day is no guarantee you'll be working on another one the next day, and Jason Schreier's collection of layoff stories is simultaneously heartbreaking and insightful. There's even a story about how well one studio handled the bad news, making the transition as easy as possible for employees. Then, there's a story from someone at the center of the 38 Studios storm. Oof.

"Anyway regarding the layoffs. So the CEO decided we no longer needed artists...any artists at all, so he took all 17 of them into his office. There he told them they are all fired, and that they must sign the form on his desk to say that they accept the mutual termination of their contract and are due no severance pay. Now this may have worked if he did it 1 on 1, with a bit of intimidation from his powerful parents, however when there are 17 people in the room? The artists burst out in hysterical laughter and told him there is no fucking way any of them are signing that shit. They then all went to a nearby law firm, got themselves an employment lawyer and sued the company. I'm no longer there, but I hear they got quite a nice payout, 3-4x what they would have been owed in severance."

If You Click It, It Will Play

These Crowdfunding Projects Look Pretty Cool

Sunset is a first-person exploration game about the people on the sidelines of wars.

Man, that Jenn Frank piece. She's such an incredible writer that I wish I could read more of. Speaking of which, @patrickklepek, you know who should be top of your list if you get that freelance budget...

Speaking of which, @patrickklepek, you know who should be top of your list if you get that freelance budget...

Me?

(I honestly wanted to comment about how I've never heard the term "narrative wrapper", and how one could possibly ignore the narrative if you're doing it in an informed enough manner. Sort of like this.)

That's a fantastic breakdown of the weird internet Phil Fish hatred. Thanks for another list of cool stuff to check out =]

Also should point out that Eboy is a group of artists and not one dude~

I do enjoy Eboy's stuff and it tends to be instantly recognizable but my personal current favorite pixel artist is Paul Robertson. Really though, I enjoy almost everything by everyone in the pixelly category.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

I'm on the fence about the Let's Play stuff.

The two most recent Let's Plays I watched were for Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls because I wanted to see the story but had already sold off my PS3. Those were also watched commentary free because I just wanted to see/hear the story more than someone's thoughts on them. In some ways, I don't see how that's much different than putting an entire movie into a youtube video. Especially because I feel like I got everything I wanted out of those two games for free while the person who put em up got ad revenue and the publisher nothing. *shrug*

I'm interested in seeing how this entire thing pans out but if people are making money off these games by showing them in their entirety online and the publishers/developers aren't getting any of it, something seems a bit fishy.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

I try to defend the guy from the ceaseless hate he gets, but he sure does make it difficult with comments like that out of nowhere.

There are some areas where he has a point (uploading entire games with no commentary), but going all hyperbolic on Twitter of all places is really unhelpful to his cause. It's not the place for a nuanced argument.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

I'm on the fence about the Let's Play stuff.

The two most recent Let's Plays I watched were for Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls because I wanted to see the story but had already sold off my PS3. Those were also watched commentary free because I just wanted to see/hear the story more than someone's thoughts on them. In some ways, I don't see how that's much different than putting an entire movie into a youtube video. Especially because I feel like I got everything I wanted out of those two games for free while the person who put em up got ad revenue and the publisher nothing. *shrug*

I'm interested in seeing how this entire thing pans out but if people are making money off these games by showing them in their entirety online and the publishers/developers aren't getting any of it, something seems a bit fishy.

The way I see it, if you made a game that people would rather watch on youtube and not feel they have to go buy and play for themselves, you made a bad game.

Incidentally, the only LP I watched all the way though was a very early LP of Trespasser by a guy from Something Awful (I think that's where LP's originated from didn't they?). Go watch that one because that's how you do a good LP and give a bit of a history lesson about staying married to a bad idea during development.

That Phil Fish video is fascinating, because it breaks down the concept of "internet famous" (and also "why does everyone hate Nickleback") in an interesting way. The article about layoffs was similarly interesting because of the seeming range of responses from different companies. The one about Big Huge Games was such a bummer.

It's also good to know that Tevis Thompson still doesn't like any video games, acts like he's above all of them but still uses a 10 point scale.

Glad I read that article about the world's first (probably) LGBT game. Interesting stuff in there that I did not realize (like how the World Health Organization apparently considered homosexuality a mental illness until 1990(!)).

And that article about PewDiePie misses the real problem with him being successful. It's not that people are jealous, it's that the very idea that such a large number of people find his videos appealing is the final nail in the coffin of the human race. We're doomed, people.

Man if people don't stop pumping Leigh Alexander up. She is a one-trick pony and no matter how many angles you look at it, it's still just one pony. Feminism in games. Female characters in games. Who the hell cares?? They are games! Not real life!

Some of Leigh Alexander's recent work that has nothing to do with feminism or women in games:

That's just a fraction of her professional output this year. The fact that you only pay attention to her when she talks about feminism — presumably so you can get worked up about the very idea of her expressing an opinion — says way more about your believes than Leigh's work does about hers.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

I'm on the fence about the Let's Play stuff.

The two most recent Let's Plays I watched were for Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls because I wanted to see the story but had already sold off my PS3. Those were also watched commentary free because I just wanted to see/hear the story more than someone's thoughts on them. In some ways, I don't see how that's much different than putting an entire movie into a youtube video. Especially because I feel like I got everything I wanted out of those two games for free while the person who put em up got ad revenue and the publisher nothing. *shrug*

I'm interested in seeing how this entire thing pans out but if people are making money off these games by showing them in their entirety online and the publishers/developers aren't getting any of it, something seems a bit fishy.

The way I see it, if you made a game that people would rather watch on youtube and not feel they have to go buy and play for themselves, you made a bad game.

Incidentally, the only LP I watched all the way though was a very early LP of Trespasser by a guy from Something Awful (I think that's where LP's originated from didn't they?). Go watch that one because that's how you do a good LP and give a bit of a history lesson about staying married to a bad idea during development.

Beyond Two Souls mighta not been great but it was far from a straight up bad game. Last of Us was fucking phenomenal. I would have bought it if I still had a PS3 and I may actually buy it when they re-release it on PS4. Boiling this down to something as subjective as whether a game is good or bad doesn't seem to be the right way to go about this.

How crazy is it that Polygon laid-off Russ Pitts? Does not bode well for a site when they get rid of their head features editor (who did fantastic work), when one of the most defining aspects of that site is its longform features. I mean, I'm sure they'll stay OK financially, assuming the Vox warchest holds out, but it sure weakens their appeal for me.

While I think Nintendo had a good show that would please avid Nintendo fans I don't think I can give the win to a company that didn't show a single game I am interested in actually purchasing.

I'm much more interested in the Microsoft, Sony and 3rd Party lineups. I think it's really an age issue. I'm 35 and Mario, Yoshi and Kirby really don't appeal to me any more. At all. If they showed Metroid and Zelda games that were more than tech demos then maybe I'd be interested, but probably not. I don't know what they can do any more, honestly. I think they'll fail to ever win over the adult male demographic without creating significant new IPs that appeal to adults who don't greatly desire to play games that make them nostalgic for their childhood.

@archaen: I'm an adult male in my thirties and most of what Nintendo had to offer appeals to me far more than anything else shown by most other companies. And are you saying games like Bayonetta 2 don't appeal to our demographic?

Well that Jenn Frank piece was worth reading all right. Sometimes I too mull over these Proustian thoughts about memories: how they fade and distort over time and how that picture of reality gets slowly replaced by symbols.

It's moving how fiercely she protects her memories. I'm just learning to protect mine, but I've already made the huge mistake of going back to certain childhood places. Now most of those memories happen in a weird mix of the old and new versions of the places that never existed. Relieving nostalgia is almost never worth the tradeoff.

@archaen: I'm an adult male in my thirties and most of what Nintendo had to offer appeals to me far more than anything else shown by most other companies. And are you saying games like Bayonetta 2 don't appeal to our demographic?

I would say that Bayonetta 2 is the one exception and that particular title I didn't enjoy as much as most. I'm just simply not interested in mascot games any more. I want great stories, interesting characters and dialogue, and environments that immerse me in a believable world. The arcade type games I enjoy tend to be ones with a particular feeling or story they're trying to convey, such as Journey, Brothers, Bastion and Limbo. There are exceptions here and there, of course. I think Bayonetta is the exception to the rule with Nintendo. I'm just not interested in the characters, environments or stories that Nintendo seems to want to tell and I think that's because they're still geared toward the 12 and under crowd.

Edit: I did enjoy Fire Emblem a lot and enjoy SMT RPGs, Phoenix Wright and Professor Layton on my 3DS, so it's not like I have a ban on Nintendo in my home. I just don't buy the Nintendo developed games very often any more.

The article on Pewdiepie completely misses the point. It's like saying, everyone that hates on Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus is just jealous of their success. No, most people are angry that such terrible people are given that much success. If you want to be overly offended about "Diversity" and such, Pewds is literally just shouting slurs and making rape jokes for "entertainment."

@archaen: The all-ages crowd, you mean. Nintendo games may largely appeal to younger crowds, but that doesn't make them "kiddie". They have a wide mix, whether it be Captain Toad, Bayonetta, Code Name: S.T.E.A.M. or Splatoon. To say thay everything they make doesn't appeal to you because of your age is disingenuous toward those of your age that do enjoy those games and those sorts of games.

If they're not your taste, that's fine. But don't pretend age is somehow a determining factor. That's a shallow argument.

The article on Pewdiepie completely misses the point. It's like saying, everyone that hates on Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus is just jealous of their success. No, most people are angry that such terrible people are given that much success. If you want to be overly offended about "Diversity" and such, Pewds is literally just shouting slurs and making rape jokes for "entertainment."

I thought he stopped making rape jokes after people kept saying he was being offensive. He even made an apology video.

I've never been one to hate people for gaining a ton of unwarrented success. It's a waste of energy to get worked up, and really, at the end of the day, who gives a shit?

Man if people don't stop pumping Leigh Alexander up. She is a one-trick pony and no matter how many angles you look at it, it's still just one pony. Feminism in games. Female characters in games. Who the hell cares?? They are games! Not real life!

I think it goes deeper than that. Her writing usually grasps at straws and doesn't form much of an argument beyond 'I'm a girl, you'd never understand how I feel'. Racism in Bioware Infinity, and this piece about damaged heroines as a bad thing just turn me off from her. Some of the greatest character writing for videogames involves character flaws and overcoming tragedy, etc. I just wish she could produce somethign more thoughtful.

Man if people don't stop pumping Leigh Alexander up. She is a one-trick pony and no matter how many angles you look at it, it's still just one pony. Feminism in games. Female characters in games. Who the hell cares?? They are games! Not real life!

You should probably pay better attention because most of her writing has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

@archaen: The all-ages crowd, you mean. Nintendo games may largely appeal to younger crowds, but that doesn't make them "kiddie". They have a wide mix, whether it be Captain Toad, Bayonetta, Code Name: S.T.E.A.M. or Splatoon. To say thay everything they make doesn't appeal to you because of your age is disingenuous toward those of your age that do enjoy those games and those sorts of games.

If they're not your taste, that's fine. But don't pretend age is somehow a determining factor. That's a shallow argument.

I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that Nintendo games aren't designed to appeal to a younger demographic. Just because some people that are adults like them too doesn't make them not designed for kids first. Disney movies can be enjoyed by adults as well but they're certainly stocked in the childrens' or "family" section. There's a reason that Nintendo products are primarily advertized during morning childrens' programming.

In addition, the only game you've mentioned so far that does not involve a cartoon mascot is Bayonetta, which is developed by Platinum Games, not Nintendo. I'm speaking of Nintendo developed games.

No, most people are angry that such terrible people are given that much success.

Because success is given? Like, you can ask for it and people will give it to you?

I'm guessing he meant more along the lines of, there are millions of talented people who are good and kind who achieve nothing despite toiling for their whole lives, so it' feels wrong when douchey, obnoxious, and ungrateful people manage to receive so much praise, while doing things like pissing in mop buckets, racing where children play, and spitting on 11 year old girls.

Personally I just have no idea why Pew has any popularity at all, I've never seen anything of his (which is admittedly only 2 or 3 video's) that is remotely amusing or entertaining. Didn't even know about rape jokes and such.

The author of the article really is missing the point by saying people who don't like him are just jealous. jealousy is not the only reason to dislike a person, or personality.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

I'm on the fence about the Let's Play stuff.

The two most recent Let's Plays I watched were for Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls because I wanted to see the story but had already sold off my PS3. Those were also watched commentary free because I just wanted to see/hear the story more than someone's thoughts on them. In some ways, I don't see how that's much different than putting an entire movie into a youtube video. Especially because I feel like I got everything I wanted out of those two games for free while the person who put em up got ad revenue and the publisher nothing. *shrug*

I'm interested in seeing how this entire thing pans out but if people are making money off these games by showing them in their entirety online and the publishers/developers aren't getting any of it, something seems a bit fishy.

You could argue it the other way around. I've purchased games after watching let's plays of them. For example, I bought persona 4 after watching the endurance run, and I bought Minecraft after watching Seananners do his lets play on it. One example is a story based game (a murder mystery no less), and the other is a game where your experience is solely based on you actually playing it. Very different games in that regard, and yet if it wasn't for the power of watching people play video games on the internet, I may never have picked them up. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that let's plays are ultimately netting publishers money. We don't (and probably can't) know what the net result is of people buying games vs. not buying games from watching lets plays. What we can know is that it isn't just straight robbery from the pocket of the publishers.

@archaen: The all-ages crowd, you mean. Nintendo games may largely appeal to younger crowds, but that doesn't make them "kiddie". They have a wide mix, whether it be Captain Toad, Bayonetta, Code Name: S.T.E.A.M. or Splatoon. To say thay everything they make doesn't appeal to you because of your age is disingenuous toward those of your age that do enjoy those games and those sorts of games.

If they're not your taste, that's fine. But don't pretend age is somehow a determining factor. That's a shallow argument.

I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that Nintendo games aren't designed to appeal to a younger demographic. Just because some people that are adults like them too doesn't make them not designed for kids first. Disney movies can be enjoyed by adults as well but they're certainly stocked in the childrens' or "family" section. There's a reason that Nintendo products are primarily advertized during morning childrens' programming.

In addition, the only game you've mentioned so far that does not involve a cartoon mascot is Bayonetta, which is developed by Platinum Games, not Nintendo. I'm speaking of Nintendo developed games.

"All-ages" is inclusive of the younger demographic. They're meant to appeal to the younger demographic, but not exclusively to that demographic. You, on the other hand, take one look at the cartoonish graphics of Captain Toad or Yoshi and immediately turn it away because you aren't a fan of the look. Fair enough, but again, that has nothing to do with age.

As for your fixation on cartoon mascots, Code Name: S.T.E.A.M. and Xenoblade Chronicles X don't really fall into the category your looking at. But even so, Bayonetta 2 was funded by Nintendo. Devil's Third is being funded by Nintendo. Hyrule Warriors, again, funded by Nintendo, despite being primarily a Tecmo Koei production. These are games that Nintendo is putting financial backing toward and are meant to appeal to audiences that aren't interested in Captain Toad or Yoshi. Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem, despite not being at E3, falls into the same category. That they aren't being developed directly by Nintendo is beside the point, because they are still, at the highest level, produced by Nintendo and exist because of Nintendo. If your focus is entirely on a new main line Zelda (which was teased) or a new Metroid, you're missing the forest by demanding to see a specific pair of trees.

Nintendo absolutely had the best showing at E3 this year, not just because of the manner of presentation but what was presented. They had games for a diverse range of tastes and audiences, whether they be all-ages or skew toward the more mature. They had games on display from a range of genres, whether they be platformers, puzzlers, RPGs, action, or casual. And with the new Zelda being the sole exception, they demonstrated all of those games live on stage for the world to see, including a pair of prototypes that don't even have names yet. But if your sole focus is on cartoon mascots (which, frankly, Bayonetta also falls into because her proportions are cartoonishly unrealistic), well, that says more about your focus and an unwillingness to take off the blinders than it does anything regarding the quality of Nintendo's line-up.

Again, you're free to like what you like, but don't use age as a blanket excuse for one game or another not appealing toward your tastes.

I will admit that most of my ire for Phil Fish is because there is this vicious cycle of people perpetuating all the stupid bullshit he says. If people didn't talk about him so much, I probably wouldn't care.

That doesn't excuse that he's a massive asshole though, and it's really fucking depressing that people hang onto every word and temper tantrum he shits out of his mouth rather than listen to lots of other people who are far more interesting and worth listening to. I wish he could just have his corner of the internet, but you can't follow gaming news without having his every move tossed in your face... I wonder if there's a Chrome app that'd block any links/pages/articles/etc of him.

I don't really care for how this video lumps everybody who hates him as people who put a great amount of effort into hating him, when I would wager that most of those people really don't want to care, but get sick of constantly hearing about him. tbh the only reason I played it was because I was promised a different viewpoint, but instead I get the same thing that defends him and blames everybody else while denying that is exactly what they are doing. It does hit the nail on the head though in that he might hate the attention but also loves it and loves whipping people into a frenzy with every word he says. Sorry if he doesn't want the fame, but lots of people get lots of things in life they don't want and just have to fucking deal with it. The person whom his close friends and family know might not be an asshole, but he chose to publicly represent himself as one so fuck him.

Also I think it's really shitty of the media to perpetuate every bad thing he says, but then blame the public for this exact situation. That's just shameless attention grabbing, and I expected better from certain sites to partake in it.

Man, when I saw that Phil Fish video earlier this week, I was all like, "OK, yeah." And then he just shit all over the entire concept of Let's Play and I was like, "What? No, Phil. Why you got to be like that?" It made me so sad.

I'm on the fence about the Let's Play stuff.

The two most recent Let's Plays I watched were for Last of Us and Beyond Two Souls because I wanted to see the story but had already sold off my PS3. Those were also watched commentary free because I just wanted to see/hear the story more than someone's thoughts on them. In some ways, I don't see how that's much different than putting an entire movie into a youtube video. Especially because I feel like I got everything I wanted out of those two games for free while the person who put em up got ad revenue and the publisher nothing. *shrug*

I'm interested in seeing how this entire thing pans out but if people are making money off these games by showing them in their entirety online and the publishers/developers aren't getting any of it, something seems a bit fishy.

You could argue it the other way around. I've purchased games after watching let's plays of them. For example, I bought persona 4 after watching the endurance run, and I bought Minecraft after watching Seananners do his lets play on it. One example is a story based game (a murder mystery no less), and the other is a game where your experience is solely based on you actually playing it. Very different games in that regard, and yet if it wasn't for the power of watching people play video games on the internet, I may never have picked them up. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that let's plays are ultimately netting publishers money. We don't (and probably can't) know what the net result is of people buying games vs. not buying games from watching lets plays. What we can know is that it isn't just straight robbery from the pocket of the publishers.

For plenty of games this may work because it's a multiplayer game or because the main draw of the game is the moment to moment gameplay. For other games, especially single player games where there isn't much if any incentive to play through it a second time, I feel like this isn't the case. Your own decision to purchase a game after watching it online is evidence that there are potential sales on the line but I don't think it can be used to determine whether or not the publisher/developer should have say in how their product is used and shared to make money for a third, unrelated party.

Personally, I enjoy Let's Plays and I use them to check out games I won't or can't play all the time. I also completely agree with you that they prolly often lead to increased sales. Especially for smaller titles that may not have huge advertising budgets. What I'm wondering is whether publishers/developers should have the right get a cut of the ad revenue that Let's Players are making if they're making that revenue using the pub/dev's games. Or whether the pub/dev should be able to just outright say "You can't stream our game". You probably couldn't do a Mystery Science Theater type thing with any movie you own and upload it to youtube without getting into some kinda trouble. You also probably couldn't make your own book on tape reading and upload it to youtube neither. I've had sound removed from videos I've uploaded because it had some licensed music playing in the bg as well. This thing is getting to a point where we'll prolly see some kind of resolution soon and I'm really curious how it'll all pan out.

I guess I'll break the mold and complain about a different person. That Luke Plunkett tweet is both ridiculous and ignorant. Alien: Resurrection for PS1 (maybe 2; can't remember) starred Ripley, in fact. And so did Alien 3 for the SNES. Dude has no idea what he's talking about. There's no sexist conspiracy at work here.

That Phil Fish essay was really good. Articulates a lot of my own thoughts.

I'm mostly with him on Lets Play, LP for the passion as a hobby, don't make it a career. When you are going to start making money, then legally speaking unless it is a really critical commentary with a lot of research and effort you're probably SOL and gotta share. YOu should be so lucky, were it some other form of media youtube would just delete your account for posting it - movies, music, etc.

I guess I'll break the mold and complain about a different person. That Luke Plunkett tweet is both ridiculous and ignorant. Alien: Resurrection for PS1 (maybe 2; can't remember) starred Ripley, in fact. And so did Alien 3 for the SNES. Dude has no idea what he's talking about. There's no sexist conspiracy at work here.

I guess I'll break the mold and complain about a different person. That Luke Plunkett tweet is both ridiculous and ignorant. Alien: Resurrection for PS1 (maybe 2; can't remember) starred Ripley, in fact. And so did Alien 3 for the SNES. Dude has no idea what he's talking about. There's no sexist conspiracy at work here.

I don't think you understood his point.

I do now, actually. Didn't think about it enough before commenting. I realize now he was talking about the new "Alien" game, specifically. To be fair, it's Twitter, so there's no context, and he also said "Aliens," rather than "Alien." Still, though, there's no conspiracy. If anything, adding Ripley to the game would get a ton more people excited for the game, in what is already a pretty casual-gamer-unfriendly game. ...or am I still missing the point (asking genuinely, not being a dick)?

I guess I'll break the mold and complain about a different person. That Luke Plunkett tweet is both ridiculous and ignorant. Alien: Resurrection for PS1 (maybe 2; can't remember) starred Ripley, in fact. And so did Alien 3 for the SNES. Dude has no idea what he's talking about. There's no sexist conspiracy at work here.

I don't think you understood his point.

I do now, actually. Didn't think about it enough before commenting. I realize now he was talking about the new "Alien" game, specifically. To be fair, it's Twitter, so there's no context, and he also said "Aliens," rather than "Alien." Still, though, there's no conspiracy. If anything, adding Ripley to the game would get a ton more people excited for the game, in what is already a pretty casual-gamer-unfriendly game. ...or am I still missing the point (asking genuinely, not being a dick)?

Plunkett wasn't referring to an Alien game specifically at all. He's talking about how games in general have taken all sorts of elements from Aliens over the years (atmosphere, setting, stye of alien menace, etc.) as inspiration except for the character of Ripley. I would argue that his assertion is incorrect, though I suppose that really depends on what sort of "Ripley character" you're looking for in a game.

(Though to be honest, I find Plunkett in general to be one of the worst elements of Kotaku and game journalism in general, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that I would disagree with him. That is beside the point, however.)

@patrickklepek The article about the layoffs was particularly interesting, but I think the line about 38 Studios should be separated from the snippet by another line or two of text, to make it clear that the quote is not talking about the 38 Studios debacle.